Why Some of Our Ratings Look Weird

Hey all! I’m Juan Villaverde. You can check me out here.

Today, I’m here to address criticisms regarding our ratings methodology.

First off, any and all feedback is welcome! I mean that.

We’re delighted with the tremendous outpouring of commentary about the Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings: the good, the bad, the ugly. We love it all because, at the core, the passionate debate and controversy reflects our shared vision for cryptocurrencies and blockchains, not only revolutionizing the financial industry, but also changing people’s relationship to money itself.

Never in my lifetime have I seen greater enthusiasm for any investment! No matter how you slice it, that’s a good thing … which leads me to one of the biggest sources of misunderstanding about our ratings:

We do analyze them as INVESTMENTS. In fact, our primary audience is investors. And most of them are new investors coming into this market for the first time.

If you’re among them, you don’t have months – let alone years – of experience with the volatility and periodic price crashes. You don’t have mammoth cryptocurrency profits in the bag to cushion the next big decline. You get scared by 10% down days. You won’t believe me if I tell you “a crash is just temporary.”

That’s the number one source of misunderstanding between our model’s results and the grades that most folks in the cryptocurrency space expected: That big price volatility!

That’s the main reason we have no A’s on our list right now.

It’s also one of the key reasons some currencies seem to be under-rated while some seem over-rated.

It’s why two currencies with very different technology or fundamentals wind up in the same general category. But they’re not the same.

So to provide more clarity, here’s what we’re going to do …

We will break out our assessment of each of the four main factors that go into our final letter grade: Risk, Reward, Technology and Fundamentals.

We will describe our assessment for each as “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” “weak” and “very weak.”

Then we’ll leave it up to each person to decide how to use the info.

(We provide explanations of each of the four indexes in this article.)

If you’re an investor primarily interested in risk/reward, you can look mostly at what our Risk and Reward Indexes have to say.

If you’re primarily focused on technology/fundamentals, no worries! You can look mostly at what our Technology and Fundamental Indexes indicate.

Will this step address all of your questions? Of course not. But it will certainly add more clarity.

I’ve got plenty more comments to respond to, particularly regarding individual coins. But I’ll save them for later, after we give our subscribers our evaluations on each of those four factors that go into our ratings.

In the meantime, check out our comments on some specific coins here.

And if you’re not yet a subscriber, you can join here.

Best,

Juan

Comments 9

Genty January 25, 2018

I have not long been involved in this would of crypto but this is a start, people are talking about the rating publicity, crypto is being marked as investment, crypto companies will want to get better ratings so they will work stronger to get their product in the lime light…. Just my take

MC reply_all Genty January 25, 2018

Agreed Genty. Standard & Poor’s started with one subscriber…

Radek January 25, 2018

Thank you for your additional explanation and comments on specific coins, but it seems there is very basic and fundamental mistake in your report, in the column “30-Day Change”.

Let’s check XRP and do some basic math.

Price (USD) 1.42 (2018-01-24) (this value seems to be WITHOUT Korean market)
30-Days Change 28.72%

1.42 / 1.2872 = 1.1032

And now when we check XRP price 30 days ago (www.coinmarketcup.com) … it seems to be correct, it was about 1.1 but WITH Korean market INCLUDED.

As I hope you know, all coins prices are much higher in Korea, so it change the average price a lot. With such mistake all data in this column are worthless and to make things worse, I guess you used such mistaken data in your other calculations. Am I right? Please note that XRP has about 50% daily volume from Korea and suffered the most… it seems this mistake in your calculations is the reason of “price crashes” you mentioned.

K. Beck January 27, 2018

Where is the rating for IOTA ???

Lorraine February 2, 2018

Hi, where is this crypto index please? I thought you had rated it, but it’s not on your home page, please signpost as all I can see is articles. Many thanks 🙂

Dawn P at Weiss Ratings reply_all Lorraine February 7, 2018

Hi Lorraine! The crypto ratings are for subscribers. I’m unable to look up your account but I will forward your inquiry to the folks who have access to it. They should be in touch soon!

D February 7, 2018

You say any and all feedback is welcome and then you ignore it. I have sent tweets to Weissratings about problems with steem which your outfit rated B and you have yet to respond.

My friend got scammed by the founders of Steem a few days ago. Lots of other problem there which are outlined in the article below including some evidence. Some kind of response would be nice telling me that you are at least looking into this.

https://247news.net/news/ned-scott-dan-larimer-steem-accused-theft-fraud/

Dawn P at Weiss Ratings reply_all D February 7, 2018

Hi D — I’ve forwarded your comment straight to Martin and Juan. As you can imagine, they are hearing from a lot of subscribers. I’ll see what i can do about getting them to comment directly or in an upcoming issue. Thank you for connecting with us!

Dawn P at Weiss Ratings reply_all D February 7, 2018

Hi again, D. Juan just asked me to send you this note …

“I’ve been using Steem for many months and know lots of people who do also. I’ve never had any issues whatsoever, beyond those we outlined in the descriptions (concentration of Steem Power in the hands of a few).

But we’ll look into it. If it merits a review of the grades, it will be done, with the proper reasoning behind the downgrade.”